Proceeding contribution from Siân Berry (Green Party) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 November 2025. It occurred during Debate on bill on English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
I want to talk first about public engagement. Fellow members of the Bill Committee know that I am not convinced that the Bill delivers the public involvement and community empowerment stated in its title, as that is not properly facilitated by the proposed measures set out in the Bill.
In Committee, I gave the Government many options to consider, including citizens assemblies, community wealth building strategies and a national public engagement commission. France has had its “Commission nationale du débat public” for 30 years, which makes real its citizens’ rights to be involved in decisions that affect their environment. It links together the environment and human rights, as set out in the excellent Aarhus convention. At this stage, I am happy to support the new option put forward by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) in relation to community empowerment. It asks the Government to undertake a review and come up with a better plan of the Government’s own choosing, which is quite reasonable and I support it.
I do not have time to go through the many other amendments that I support, but I feel like consensus around many issues is breaking out in the Chamber, as it sometimes did in Committee. However, I want to single out new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), which proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19, which asks for the alternative vote system to be used for mayoral elections, not the supplementary vote. In single member elections, the alternative vote gives real choice: people simply choose their candidate and rank them, so there is no second guessing about who might be in the second round. It means a guaranteed consensus-driven majority for the winning candidate, so the Government should consider that.
More broadly, as some Members have noted, I have talked many times about being a member of the London Assembly and holding the Mayor of London to account with a dedicated, funded scrutiny body. The Government should pay much more attention to scrutiny in this Bill at the next stage.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 776 cc311-2
- Session
- 2024-26
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Accountability Audit Councillors Administration Allowances Devolution Committees Fees and charges Land Elections Licensing Environment Greater London Greater London Authority Fire and rescue services Land use Essex Local government Misconduct Local government finance Powers Property development Parish and town councils Media Mayor of London National park authorities Standards Tourism Safety Combined authorities Taxis Vetting Sportsgrounds Rents Unitary councils Rutland Mayors Police and crime commissioners Surrey Broads Authority Corporate governance Community assets Community Ownership Fund
- Legislation
- Local Government Act 2000
- Localism Act 2011
- English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-11-26 21:51:55 +0000
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-11-25/25112550000106
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-11-25/25112550000106
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-11-25/25112550000106